Why do you think the cost of gas fired to make steam for the generators will be more costly than coal fired. Gas could be used on the boilers now, probably can't shut one down long enough to change over.

Thanx Pericles... interesting insights.

I might..or... might not be correct in my market understanding.

Still, in the final analysis, I think it's better for consumers to have the bargaining power rather than just be at the mercy of the competitive 'bids' for our wallet contents from the providers themselves. They only have to 'bend' far enough to 'look' more financially attractive.... and only just at that.

The power table must be turned around to us rather than them.

If they have 7c in the dollar (Yabby) 'profit' that would be a $140,000,000 profit on a turnover of 2billion. Not too shabby.
If we reduced that to 5c it would give us 2c/$ lower cost. On a bill of $1200/yr that would save us.. (take a deep breath) $24 :) 4c=$48

But according to 'Choice' the diff between best and worst offerings is 20% so someone's figures (Yabby's I suspect) are a bit off.

If I'm not mistaken...the Energy company's make a LOT of money out of 'trading'.. buying when cheap...selling when expensive..something like that. So.. knowing more about what they do actually make (aside from 'official' estimates of their 'basic' margins) would be helpful.

Can you point me in the right direction to find out more ? I can't for the life of me find 'Annual Reports' for Truenergy..

On those figures, Boaz, you simply don't have a business.

>>If they have 7c in the dollar (Yabby) 'profit' that would be a $140,000,000 profit on a turnover of 2billion. Not too shabby.
If we reduced that to 5c it would give us 2c/$ lower cost. On a bill of $1200/yr that would save us.. (take a deep breath) $24 :) 4c=$48<<

Your margin figure is wrong. If you offer $48 p.a. savings to your customer base, that comes off the revenue line as well as the profit line.

So with an average bill of $1,200, your power company has 1.67million customers. Give back $48 each, revenue becomes $1.92 bn. Costs remain the same at $1.86bn, your profit is now $60m, net margin is therefore 3c in the dollar, not 4c.

That would send the shareholders scurrying for the exits, for sure.

>>But according to 'Choice' the diff between best and worst offerings is 20% so someone's figures (Yabby's I suspect) are a bit off.<<

There is no correlation whatsoever between "best and worst offerings" and net profits, I'm afraid. Each provider will have a mix of tariffs that average themselves out into a final yield amount. Not everyone will be on the lowest tariff - for a start, it might be one that ties you in for three years.

And that's the fundamental flaw in your buying-group concept. $4 a month is a cup of coffee (well, it is here in Sydney), and is not really a "must have" saving.

Especially when you have the chicken-and-egg problem to resolve.

In order to bring people into your scheme, you need to have negotiated, ahead of time, a specific deal that is attractive enough to bring them into the fold. But in order to establish your "group discount" with the power company, you need to have a specific number of people signed up to your scheme.

There's simply not enough slack in the existing system to make a go of it, I'm afraid.

Don't let that put you off scheming, though. It's what being in business is all about.

*If they have 7c in the dollar (Yabby) 'profit' that would be a $140,000,000 profit on a turnover of 2billion. Not too shabby.*

Boaz, the 7c in the dollar figure I quoted was over all of
Origin's businesses. Retailing power is only a section of that.
It's in their gas where there is potential. But to get a fair
judgement of how a company is running, take a look at return
on equity or money invested.

In the case of Origin, they have 8 billion $ worth of assets.
So 600 million$ profit is just a little more then bank interest.
Given the risk involved, its hardly remarkable, for you could
just as easily stick in the the bank at 7%.

Companies do in fact care about customers, for without them,
there would be no business. You'll find that companies who
do focus on their customers, in fact do alot better in the
marketplace.

But of course we also have plenty of customers who want
everything for nothing, no matter what it costs, they want
it even cheaper.

So there needs to be a balance between customers, shareholders
who risk their hard earned savings and staff who need to be
paid fairly for their contribution to the business.

That is commonly easier said then done.

A Hearty thanks to both Yabby and Pericles for those insights!

Isn't it wonderful when we all worktogether to achieve a result :)

I'll try to digest it all over the next few days. I don't expect that suddenly the earth is going to shake as an outcome, but it does make interesting explorations.

I'm off to the Mind Body Spirit Festival today for my annual spiritual 'punch up' with various Jihadi's, Witches, Fortune Tellers and Psychics.
My prayer... just in case you might wonder :) is this "Lord, help me to seek to win the heart, not the argument" of course 'winning arguments' is what OLO is about...and that's why I take that approach.
OLO is about issues... meeting people in person requires a more mellow approach.
It's amazing how much people open up during quiet conversations. What amazes me though is how many seem to open up even to those charging them a truckload of money ! ! $80 for a 20min 'chalk drawing' of any one of a number of pre-rehearsed 'spirit guide' images.... amazing stuff.

One of the psychics actually ripped into me last time for making the point that we DON'T charge anything, and that because we are ideologically 'agin' most of what's there... we don't deserve a spot. *nice*.

Sort of reminds me of where things are headed .... such as this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325311/Gay-rights-laws-danger-freedoms-Bishops-speak-homosexuality.html

If reported accurately, the council TELLING them they must say "homosexual behaviour is ok"... it would be Marcusian 'repression' of the worst kind. The council should BUTT OUT of peoples religious freedom. I rather doubt that this couple are goind to have daily 'anti gay' indoctrination for any foster child. It simply doesn't come up in normal Christian discourse. But if asked a question "Is being gay ok?" they should be free to answer according to their convictions, and direct the question to the ACT(behavior) rather than perceived orientation.
I know..off topic :)

Come one..come all (if in melbourne) look for a Christian stand :) Jeffs shed.

Errrr.... what "result" might that be, Boaz?

>>Isn't it wonderful when we all worktogether to achieve a result :)<<

If the result is that you decide that your scheme will not get off the ground, that's great. Yabby and I have saved you a great deal of pain and money.

My fee for this service is 15% of the savings, by the way.

What do you reckon that would amount to, Yabby?